• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Doom 4 Alpha Benchmarks

You're absolutely insane if you're not seeing the massive jump from Wolfenstein to this. Doom looks dramatically better. It's a beautiful game.

Is it really? The best looking game on the market right now is AC: Unity. Is DOOM close to this? Doesn't look like from the screens I saw.

The benchmarks are really rough fur such "normal" looking game IMO.
 
When tuxfool psoted these the other day I died inside. Not because of the obvious alpha nature of the vendor spread... but because of the terrifying thought that Doom 4 will be capped @ 60fps for no fucking reason.
It's because of the horrendous, Idtech shit they use as an engine.
 
I like the idea of mega textures, but the way they ended up actually implementing it (using "stamping" for randomisation and personilsation), just led in a lot of cases to the same patterns popping up, just in a different order. It wasn't as painterly as they describe it.

The extent to which stamping is an issue is directly correlated to how much time the artists have to create content, and given Dishonored 2 is looking to release four years after the original, I think it'll be even less of an problem (assuming for the moment that Void is indeed based on id Tech 6 and the game isn't delayed further)... but of course that depends on how many unique locations the game has -- the more locations, the less time they have to devote to each.

added disclaimer (auto translated):

The tidbit about the possibility of AMD cards using lower settings brought to mind this relatively ancient controversy, haha.
 
You're absolutely insane if you're not seeing the massive jump from Wolfenstein to this. Doom looks dramatically better. It's a beautiful game.


Maybe it's a leap from Wolfenstien, but it still looks lackluster.


Doesn't come close to games like Battlefront, Froza, Driveclub, The Order, Unity, Witcher, MGSV, or even Halo, which disappointed graphically as well, but still looked much better than what I have seen from Doom 4.


Doom 4 looks like a "standard" current gen game. And "standard graphics" and "Doom" shouldn't be in the same sentence.


I'll just leave this here too. The good ole days.

http://youtu.be/Qj3dPyk7hPI
 
My 2Gb 680 gently weeps.

Also, the stuff about the game automatically changing up settings based on the hardware can die in a fire. I should be the one to define the quality baseline for my machine, not the developers.
 
devs really need to optimize their games at this point,a 980 isn't even 2 years old and can't even run it at a locked 60FPS... a joke.
 
That Radeon performance advantage is ridiculous, none of their major cards falls below a minimum of 60fps whilst no Nvidia card can manage a locked 60fps so far. Funny that the 390x is missing from so many benches, but I see the 290x is there no less.

Things are about to get interesting but AMD performance seems to be taking an upward spiral of late.
 
devs really need to optimize their games at this point,a 980 isn't even 2 years old and can't even run it at a locked 60FPS... a joke.

Your post?

In all seriousness: First, it's an alpha version. You can't expect it to be optimized in any way, especially not towards different GPUs. Second, a high end graphics card should not be the limit developers should adhere to. Just pick the graphics settings that allow the game to run on your hardware to your content. Why artificially limit settings only so that you can pull all sliders to max?
 
That's disappointing.

Maybe I should buy games on console for a few months and wait for the 1070 line, save up my money.

Or maybe switch to team red.
 
People are already freaking out on the performance of an alpha build Jesus. Yea all you SLI 980Ti owners should get the console version just to stay safe.

Ok, so it runs like ass.

And now people will say 'But it's not the release version!' to cover the fact that it runs like ass.

Then it'll release and still run like ass and those people will be nowhere to be found.

I know how this game works.

What we see doesn't seem very promising for several reasons but how about we wait for the release before we lose our shit?
 
Ok, so it runs like ass.

And now people will say 'But it's not the release version!' to cover the fact that it runs like ass.

Then it'll release and still run like ass and those people will be nowhere to be found.

I know how this game works.
 
Ok, so it runs like ass.

And now people will say 'But it's not the release version!' to cover the fact that it runs like ass.

Then it'll release and still run like ass and those people will be nowhere to be found.

I know how this game works.

"i don't see the 30-60 fps difference anyway"
 
And now people will say 'But it's not the release version!' to cover the fact that it runs like ass.

Then it'll release and still run like ass and those people will be nowhere to be found.

Right? Might as well argue that taking benchmarks of an alpha is pointless if there's going to be a magic bullet to fix performance on release.
 
My mind is not accepting this.

I bought a 970 just last month.
At this point I'm just waiting till the new cards are announced before I upgrade, I think AMD will make it quite interesting with their hardware and software combo next round and will force NVidia's hand to be more competitive. Their current hardware has already improved tremendously since their latest drivers and direct x12.......Vulcan software should be very interesting as well....


As for the 970, it's a good little card, but I fear it will be on the chopping block soon for the latest titles. It's interesting there was a huge thread when the Ubisoft guy said they didn't max out the division for PC, but people fail to realize that the 970 does not even play that game (in it's current state) at 1080p locked 60fps.
 
People are already freaking out on the performance of an alpha build Jesus. Yea all you SLI 980Ti owners should get the console version just to stay safe.



What we see doesn't seem very promising for several reasons but how about we wait for the release before we lose our shit?

I will retain my shit, as you ask.

And when the game is released I will calmly point back to this thread and then release said retained shit.
 
Ok, so it runs like ass.

And now people will say 'But it's not the release version!' to cover the fact that it runs like ass.

Then it'll release and still run like ass and those people will be nowhere to be found.

I know how this game works.

Pretty much.
 
60 cap is pretty disappointing. I'm not putting much stock in those Nvidia benches though, 780Ti's pulling 40 fps at 1080p doesnt add up, they are targeting 60 across the board on consoles right?

The 'options' menu is a sad looking thing.

DOOMx64_2016_02_16_21_49_17_680.jpg
 
Lol nvidia. Get your head out of your ass and start releasing decent drivers.

Pascal pls save us.

My mind is not accepting this.

I bought a 970 just last month.

At this point I'm just waiting till the new cards are announced before I upgrade, I think AMD will make it quite interesting with their hardware and software combo next round and will force NVidia's hand to be more competitive. Their current hardware has already improved tremendously since their latest drivers and direct x12.......Vulcan software should be very interesting as well....


As for the 970, it's a good little card, but I fear it will be on the chopping block soon for the latest titles. It's interesting there was a huge thread when the Ubisoft guy said they didn't max out the division for PC, but people fail to realize that the 970 does not even play that game (in it's current state) at 1080p locked 60fps.

Those benchmarks... Pascal cannot come sooner haha.

Yeah because it's the GPUs fault here, a 970 usually has half the performances of a 290X... Are you even serious?
 
Lol nvidia. Get your head out of your ass and start releasing decent drivers.
The latest Nvidia update includes improvements (supposedly) for the HITMAN beta. Which, as of today, has yet to release.

This could very well be a case of bad communication between id Software and Nvidia.

Or not. Who knows. It's a fucking alpha.
 
Why people complain about locked framerate when you need at least a 780 Ti to hit that ceiling?

[/b]Either there's something wrong with these benchmarks or the engine is utter shit.[/b]

The game looks pretty demanding though


AMD Radeon 7970 is doing better than my 970s. Awesome.


The cynic in me wants to say gets used to that cause that's what happened to my 780 after Maxwell released. 960's were outperforming it
 
Might be a stupid question, but aren't alpha benchmarks pretty pointless?
Doesn't alot of optimizations happen in the final stages of development?
 
Maybe it's a leap from Wolfenstien, but it still looks lackluster.


Doesn't come close to games like Battlefront, Froza, Driveclub, The Order, Unity, Witcher, MGSV, or even Halo, which disappointed graphically as well, but still looked much better than what I have seen from Doom 4.


Doom 4 looks like a "standard" current gen game. And "standard graphics" and "Doom" shouldn't be in the same sentence.


I'll just leave this here too. The good ole days.

http://youtu.be/Qj3dPyk7hPI

Halo 5? You can't be serious.
 
Top Bottom